Perhaps it was posted already, but it's a GOOD reminder - AND IT TICKS ME OFF.greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
-- Osiris (...@.......), November 30, 1999
It's there. Also, the new Intel Pentium III processor has a unique identifier hardcoded in each. Which can be queried remotely. "Supposedly" it can be disabled by a software patch you can download from the Intel site. I believe in its effectiveness like I believe in Santa Claus (or the honesty of the TPTB's money/credit/banking system.
-- A (A@AisA.com), November 30, 1999.
From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California My Privacy Page
Back to Mac...
-- Dancr (email@example.com), November 30, 1999.
-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), November 30, 1999.
Read this for a different view.
-- Colin MacDonald (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 30, 1999.
Does not work
-- bb (email@example.com), November 30, 1999.
Sure, colin, it's no threat to us... Just like Hitler was no threat to the jews... Just like chamerlain bought "peace in our time"... LOL.
-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), November 30, 1999.
Does AMD have any of bullshit on their processors?
-- number six (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 30, 1999.
-- 6 (email@example.com), November 30, 1999.
Sun workstations have had a hardware ID for a looooooong time.
But it's really moot, as you lose *all* anonymity the instant you establish a session with your ISP.
You *can* be tracked back to your connection -- and *by* your connection, *to* your *identity* -- so long as your ISP maintains logs.
As to anonymous browsing services, I'm not aware of any that don't maintain logs in order to protect *themselves* from prosecution. If they're subpoenaed, they'll hand over the goods.
Finally, some will argue that there are truly anonymous email forwarders -- to which I reply, in advance, so what? Do *you* know -- for a fact -- that the remailer you use is *not* set up by the gov't in order to track anon traffic? And I *did* read a "reliable source" (translation: it was solid, but I can't place the URL at the moment) that confirmed that the gov't is indeed using anon remailers of its own specifically to harvest interesting info. And, regardless -- the concerns raised whenever the "ID Thing" is raised generally have to do with browsing, not with email.
And does anyone think it'll be all that long before identity disclosure is mandated by law? It's already been proposed a few times.
-- Ron Schwarz (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 30, 1999.
Last I saw no one was forcing anyone to use the internet.
-- Mitchell Barnes (email@example.com), November 30, 1999.
---Ron, you nailed it on the head, I smelled a BIG RAT with these anonymous services. what better way to concentrate all the real secret stuff than providing the supposedly secret surfing service?-Also, dig this-ICQ--ever wonder how the heck they make any money, how the heck they EVER made money setting up? I mean, here you have a really nifty "free" service, that's real time, pass a lot of groovy info if you want, and for some reason it was some sorta mass freebie by a handful of poor isreali kids? something about that didn't add up either.
-- zog (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 30, 1999.
No ones forcing u to use your phone either, dumbass, but do you want all your friggin calls tapped?
-- Use common sense (@ .), November 30, 1999.
As a former spook, who actually trod the halls of the puzzle palace, I can say a few things. Not much just a few things. First in my day (very long ago) we had laws that protected you folks. When we stood to in formation sometimes they would ask us to recite passages from those laws. If we failed, we received demerits.
Somewhere between my day and today, we lost it. The laws passed in the 70's to protect the private citizen are perfectly good to protect them today. If someone wants us to change those laws, watch out! 'cause IMO it ain't for YOUR good.
'The Community' in general is not what it was twenty years ago. Perhaps it wasn't even then, but I was young and naieve. Now I am old and cynical.
These discussions of what the current technology is capable are soooo wide of the mark, it makes me laugh (when I am not quivering in fear). We must remember that these folks were breaking the standard Unix password encryption algorythm during WWII. That's right kiddies the Unix password encryption IS the Enigma Cipher. It still is today... think on that. It is exportable. It is absolutly NO problem to these folks at all. Anything exportable is absolutly NO problem at all to these folks, and that stands to reason ofcourse.
'The Fort' as I long ago came fondly to call it was so deeply in the knickers of the Dept of the Army in 1976 that they could encrypt personnel records and prevent AUTHORIZED users from reading them... This without anyone else's knowledge... I know because they did that with mine once. Why they mioght need to do that is another discussion.
But then if you ask them about me they will tell you I am a nut... Who knows, perhaps they are correct and perhaps I am only as crazy as was prudent, but then you would have to ask a different agency about that.
What they were aboe to do in the seventies was very, very, impressive. In 1992 I was 'recalled' sort of recalled anyway. It was an unclassified project but I would rather not speak to it except to say that analog cellular privacy was already a joke by that time and it was new technology at the time (this is a fact). Rest assured digital cellular privacy is a joke today (this is an assumption).
Anyone who believes the MS story on this _NSAKEY is as naieve as I was in the 70's. That key lets them into YOUR computer, unless they obey the laws ALREADY on the books. Check into the Privacy Act.
DO NOT LET CONGRESS MODIFY THE EXISTING LAWS ON PRIVACY. They (Congress) are currently PISSED at NSA (hence cutting the budget by one third). Exploit that fact. Write your Congressman and tell him that you want to REMAIN protected from the 'Puzzle Palace'. Tell him/her that the next knock on their door could be a man in an non-descript suit with an NSA shield and a proposal they can't refuse.
-- (...@.......), November 30, 1999.